Check out the survey linked above, NO DISTINCTION between anthropogenic and natural global warming there, no way to remain honest and answer the questions. This is the MOST BIASED survey I have ever seen, with the questions akin to Have You Stopped Eating Dog Yet, yes or no.

Well I took the survey and got labelled “Doubtful” as I answered “don’t know” to the question of whether GW is happening. The reason being, of course, that it depends on the time scale. But that crucial detail wouldn’t even occur to the creaters of this silly survey.

Even with Nick Minchin there, I expect that there will be some propaganda spill by the ABC, and almost certainly there will be some sort of tampering of any post show poll. The ABC are avid backers of the AGW cause/belief/hoax.. Watch for some sort of trap !!!
I expect that the GetUp! mod (a left wing propaganda troop sponsored by the Government and the Union) were very careful NOT to vote in the first poll, but will come out in a swarm afterwards.

I’m boiling beer and whilst keeping an eye on it, pulled out my iPad to check my email and see what’s happening on Facebook and the rest of the world. Between Treacher hammering the dog thing so hilariously, a lovely walk at a nearby nature preserve, the pleasure of brewing, and this, it’s been an enjoyable Sunday.

I took the poll. I’m rated “Dismissive”. It’s easy, only 16 multiple choice questions. Took a couple of minutes. I had to do a search for Australian Postal Codes though, because it asked for one. Didn’t want my out of country vote discarded.

I just took the survey and wound up as ‘dismissive’, which, it informed me, meant that I didn’t believe global warming was happening, even though I explicitly answered that I thought it was. Sigh. They don’t seem to consider that anyone might think that the world has been going through a natural warming phase, and that this is a Good Thing.

Actually the poll appears to have been highly successful. Remember that this is to be followed by a show and another poll. The game plan is to show how many “dissmisive” respondents can have their mind changed by the end of the show. To this end the poll was rigged. Many reported on Andrew Bolt’s blog that entering lukewarmer or partial believer responses still returned a poll result of “dissmisive”.

Do not trust the ABC. They only produce advocacy journalese on AGW. This propaganda stunt is a sad attempt to lend support to the hoax prior to the green/left carbon tax starting.

What gives me the impression that ABC are road testing,”Dismissive” as a substitute for , “denier”? And even though I said that I’m certain the Earth has been warming, I still got the standard,”you don’t believe GW is happening” accusatory blurb. I’m off to build a mangonel to hurl frozen oven-ready turkeys at wind turbines as my contribution to Earth Day.

Yes, I’d thought of that. But being lemmings and thus not too bright, maybe the aren’t checking IP’s. For anyone who needs a code, any 4-digit number starting with 60XX, 61XX, 62XX, etc. up to 67XX will work.

When this survey first came online about two weeks ago the dismissive and doubtful percentages reached 82%. Since then there’s been a steady decline, and we’re pretty sure that’s due to a concerted effort by the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (57000 members). It’ll be nice to see the difference in percentages after contributions by WUWT readers. But please remember to go in and do the survey again in coming weeks.

I have done a screen shot of the poll most days almost since it started so as to watch the trend. At 8500 votes (10th April) the “dismissive” were way ahead (I estimate using a ruler (no numbers appear to be shown) “dismissive” 75%, “alarmed” about 25%). As time went on and more votes came in, the “dismissive” bar got shorter and the “alarmed” bar got longer. Currently with 15910 votes counted “alarmed” is about 50% of the length of the “dismissive” bar (with “doubtful” a bit shorter than “alarmed”). Flicking through the images quickly I can watch the “dismissive” bar shrink and the “alarmed” bar grow, starting suddenly at about 14th April. Almost like someone panicked and started prodding GetUp members. I am watching for a last desperate surge before Wednesday so it won’t embarrass the ABC.

When I took the poll about a week after it started, the dismissive vote was at 68%, however the Warmistas rallied their troops and apparently have narrowed the gap. The ABC used to be a news organisation but has now morphed into a Left Wing Propaganda mouthpiece with declining production standards. SBS has taken over the serious viewing population.

Not even with the most biased survey I ever seen do they manage to get the answers they want. This parrot is dead!! :) ABC brainwashTV must be defunded immediately its an obvious propaganda machine! Poor Aussies

Accuweather website on global warming
“Earth was cold enough 20,000 years ago for an ice sheet to extend from the Arctic to the midwest United States. The major difference in the planet between then and now is a comparatively trivial difference in the amount of energy received from the sun. This small difference, however, triggers processes within the climate system that amplify its effect.”

The ABC is full of climate heaters BUT the management are committed to open discussions and in the last few years they are trying to bring balance into their online sites (The Drum and Opinion being two of them). The traditional left wing climate heaters are there in large numbers which makes for interesting posting, they are shocked that ‘their’ ABC would allow such attitudes as climate change denial.

The survey is poor to pathetic but it is a government station after all. The results will stand and I don’t believe they will tamper or place a bias on the program or the survey results. After the show there is a Q & A program where views are expressed and that should be worth watching.

Pity they didn’t do the show and survey BEFORE the carbon tax of $23 a tonne was put through both houses by the left wing Labor (note the American spelling?) Party.

Accuweather needs to check its theories. Some say the reason has to do with trade winds changing oceanic conditions to cold patterns that eventually led to very severe cold weather systems building up fresh water ice damns along the major river systems of the great lakes and above Missoula, Montana. It probably occurred in Siberia as well. Year round sea ice bridges may have also occurred at the poles, changing oceanic circulation patterns as well.

Its now at 52% dismissive but add doubtful maybe 65% or so. Re Accuweather climate center should be put in the warmist crank area. Good ol Brett has been told to toe the line… LOL BTW above ther is no global warming see here> Official NASA site

Looking at the survey questions – heavily biased with no real options – seems you can vote twice – but nothing to say if that cancels your earlier poll! I think that is a rigged polling process to make it a black or white choice. My guess is that there are organized groups set to swamp the poll after the program to prove a change. Suspect Getup (350.0rg style clone) and government poll watchers have their hands firmly on this. I would not be surprised to see a huge turn-a-round (change of mind) recorded after the program screens.

So much dirty political work going on in the background in Australia, the liars are determined and willing to do anything, in the vain hope they wont be destroyed in the next election. The Greens will do anything it takes to gain the upper hand (power), as if they don’t win that extra ground they will self destruct in the scatter for answers and issues.

The losers will be the Australian people if they dumbly stand by and don’t start demanding answers rather than the spin we get served up as climate science.

The poll was running at about 67% dismissive for a long time. I think that the ABC was planning to use this to re-launch the alarmist message and saw how the number we looking and have recently tried to mobilise some “correction” in the voting. Lets see how the WUWT readers can really change the numbers. Many JoNova readers have already voted on this poll.

P Walker, I’m boiling it because that’s how you make it–in a couple of weeks I’ll bottle it, and a couple of weeks after that will come the cold drinking part, although not by me, as I don’t like it. If anyone happens to be in King City over Memorial Day weekend, however, you’re welcome to drink some too. :)

Your profile is DISMISSIVE
The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. – ( No just the unprecedented and catastrophic part of it. ) – You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. – ( Only the part where I have to pay for this scam ) – You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well informed about the causes, consequenses, and potential solutions – ie., that there are none because it doesn’t exist. – ( Ain’t nothing happening now that hasn’t happened before ) – You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. – ( You got that right ) – Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening , natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. – ( Yep ) – Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement amoung scientists over whether global warming is occurring, – ( No just the unprecedented and catastropic part ) – while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. – ( Sh*t… where did they get that consensus crap from ) – You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. – ( Only financially. ) – Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people. – ( No this scam has already harmed a great deal of people. )

Boy talk about putting words in your mouth, they have a funny take on some things

Steve from Rockwood, no, it’s in the Salinas Valley of California, in Monterey County. We’ve had a big family reunion there every year for the last 25, and it’s a great weekend. David Ball? I brew beer (and mead, actually) but don’t drink it. You’d think that would make me very popular with single gents my age, but so far, no luck there.

My CO2 production is for a noble cause, and I’m guessing that even the most rabid and mindless AGW advocate (and definitely all those Aussies at the ABC, because I have it on very good authority that all Australians like beer) would forgive me for putting more of the evil poison gas into the atmosphere.

You would think someone somewhere would do a poll on the cost of global warming madness and that the biased budget interests of unions would collide with the biased budget interests of global warmers. But then with new tax sources to spread around with kick the can debt finance and with the gradual hollowing out of society from reduced investment in infrastructure and institutions there is time to play the fiction game with other peoples’ money.

I’m dismissive, and thinking the survey could have gone further, such as ‘the australian government is guilty of treason, economic destruction, genocide…’
Get Up are a rapid response group, not all bad, notwithstanding toxic pollies, and will almost certainly flood the ABC poll on thursday afternoon and night (oz time).
James Delingpole will be in Kent Town in 1 hour, at the Bert Kelly Research Centre, postcode 5067. I hope to engage him for a few minutes.
I’m wondering how much I’ll reduce my carbon footprint if I use a bar fridge as a bedside cabinet ???
on a brighter note, the australian labor government is soooo close to imploding… one can at least hope !

I retook the test. I still flunked
I tried to remember as many relevant questions as I could but……
Here’s the “they said…I said”
1. The Doubtful * (that’s me) * say they don’t know whether global warming is happening or not.
* I said I thought it was, some. How’s that doubtful?
2. You also say the issue is not personally important to you and you are not worried about it.
* Huh? I said it was somewhat important and I was somewhat worried.
3. You have thought only a little about global warming, and are informed only a little about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, yet say that you are somewhat unlikely to change your mind about the issue.
* Not sure where they got all that. I don’t remember that question. Plus, I said my mind could be changed.
4. Most of the Doubtful believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening and believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause.
* I don’t remember the ‘scientists’ part but I do remember agreeing with some warming and confess my sin of blaming Gaea.
5. A majority of the Doubtful say global warming will harm them personally or future generations only a little or not at all, although some simply say they don’t know.
* True enough, I said a little.
6. Finally, you believe global warming will not start harming people for at least 100 years.
* I had to answer something or they’d never let me out.

I used my email address but postal code 6723. I said I was a 35 yosw female. Not sure how that affects their stats. My answers leaned lukewarm. They said I was “doubtful” but I said I believe.

The first time through, as a “dismissive” I gave my real vitals. They had me nailed. Dismissive and starting to feel contempt.

Apparently I am “dismissive” and join 52% of clever well informed Aussie voters who feel the same way. Dismissive is the new denier, don’t you know. And remember to chant: connect the dots, connect the dots. It’s the new thing, don’t you know. Buy the t-shirt!

“The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because it doesn’t exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.”

26% of voters were “Alarmed”:
“The Alarmed are the group most convinced that global warming is happening. Global warming is very important to you and you are very worried about it. You have thought a lot about the issue, believe you are well informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, and are highly unlikely to change your mind. You believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening, and overwhelmingly believe that human activities are the primary cause. Compared to the other five groups, you are the most likely to view it as a threat to you personally and to future generations, and as already harming people now rather than in the distant future.”

There they go connecting dots again.
———————–
The problem is just one look at her picture and you know she believes. I wonder sometimes, what makes people believe in the “cause” to such unfathomable depths. I’m afraid it burns inside.

I just did the questionair:
Dismissive
The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because it doesn’t exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.

The title of the show is “I CAN CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT..CLIMATE”, so for the “after” poll to be valid the poll would HAVE to be restricted to only those people who voted before the show. If they didn’t vote before the show – how would the producers know if anyone changed their minds. I know it won’t happen though and you are probably right about GetUp.

Why not make our own poll? A poll that is totally unbiased. I know that with all of the talent that abounds here, someone can make a really great poll. I just don’t think that I could do it though. Anybody want to give it a go?

WOW!!! A huge (NOT!) 14% say they’ll “do something.” That probably means they drove their SUV to a park to plant a tree that will die anyway. Oooh that will save the planet from pending climate doom. ☺☺

Yeah, I’m dismissive too, apparently. The survey had an either you’re with us or you’re against us flavour. It didn’t (probably deliberately) allow for the strongest, most common skeptic position known to me as the luke warm perspective: not denying CO2 GHG effect but believing on the basis of reported scientific research & measurement that it is not that significant, let alone catastrophic, and that other natural factors are much more significant in climate change.

They key to this poll is in the intro graphic which asks the questions:

What do you think about climate change? What does it say about you?

The implication is clear. The follow up program will not be about the evidence to support AGW. It will be about what is “wrong” with the people who are in the dismissive and doubtful categories. This poll isn’t about how people have evaluated the facts. It is about assessing how many of them are “wrong” and will no doubt be followed with recommendations as to what to do about them.

I gave them a bunch of odd dots to connect. They connected the dots and classed me DISMISSIVE. That must have been based on just one answer. I was expecting a big “TILT” – flashing red. For instance, I indicated I was very concerned about the issue of global warming. A scam is worth worrying about – is it not? The climate? Not worried about it.
———————————–

Check out the “winter” weather forecast for Pennsylvania. Part of the same area that had an early summer – a few weeks ago.

I took the survey and broke out laughing many times at the blatant push polling questions. An appalling survey from the start to the end where they even ask for “Political Affiliation” and don’t give a “none” option – obviously every single person must be aligned to one of the major political parties in their mind. And yes, it says 52% are “Dismissives” (is that a more polite or PC way to say “denier”?).

Interesting. So the postal code is purely voluntary, it isn’t being used to screen out non aussie participants after all. So… why ask at all then? To identify which areas are most in need of agressive education programs?

Check out the survey linked above, NO DISTINCTION between anthropogenic and natural global warming there, no way to remain honest and answer the questions. This is the MOST BIASED survey I have ever seen, with the questions akin to Have You Stopped Eating Dog Yet, yes or no.

The questions also appear to play “bait and switch” between any actual issue of warming and the political issue of warming.
It’s somewhat odd that the results are not a simple summary of the answers given too.

The survey begins with an opening statement that is flawed from a research point of view, utilizing confirmation bias and attempting through ‘framing’ to yield a certain outcome.

“You may have noticed that global warming has been getting some attention in the news. Global warming refers to the idea that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.”

It appears that I am an unbeliever as well, shucks. Had a look at the video promoting that ABC nonsense where they stated that disagreeing with a climate skeptic can be “dangerous”. The female self proclaimed warmist guru started bating Minchin straight off with a “smoking is bad for your health” argument just to completely piss Minchen off and that worked. So that entire program will be a total sham as usual. Sickeningly obvious outcome i bet. There’s taxpayers dollars well wasted..

I noticed this part of Anna’s bio:
” She became a climate change campaigner after her grandparent’s farm in North Western NSW was affected by the Drought, and Anna connected the dots to climate change”

When the drought broke, flooding occured due to poor dam operation, and Australia was saddled with expensive and useless desalination plants, did Anna ‘connect the dots’ and realise CAGW was a complete crock?
Or does she just continue to ‘fight the good fight’ because it gives her something to show off about to her vegan friends at dinner parties?

Even with Nick Minchin there, I expect that there will be some propaganda spill by the ABC, and almost certainly there will be some sort of tampering of any post show poll. The ABC are avid backers of the AGW cause/belief/hoax.. Watch for some sort of trap !!!
I expect that the GetUp! mod (a left wing propaganda troop sponsored by the Government and the Union) were very careful NOT to vote in the first poll, but will come out in a swarm afterwards.

A VERY good point. Problem for them though, is that as much as the questions in the first poll were illogical and biased, so will be the questions in the second one. And sceptics are used to publically tearing this sort of nonsense to shreds, and that is what we shall do. It will backfire on them like these silly stunts always do. They still haven’t learned to debate the actual science (because they cannot) and are doing this in the continued misbelief that it’s all about publicity. Fools!

I don’t think us sceptics should do things like fake an Australian postcode (as suggested above) just to get on the survey. Leave the fakery to the Warmists like Gleick. Our argument will win anyway so I don’t think we need to risk getting the finger pointed at us for engaging in underhand tactics.

I started out 10 years ago as being in the “Concerned” category, which is why I wanted to know more about it. For the first couple of years, the more I asked, the less I was sure. I was asking anyone and everyone that I could find back then for papers and studies and hard data of what is actually happening, so I could confirm for myself what is happening, against what is projected to happen.

I found that I was getting two different sides of a debate which one side denied was even happening. The more I investigated, the more alarmed I became… Not at the risk of a catastrophic global climatic hazard, which raw data could not confirm, but at the tactics of the one side which constantly projected its faults and failings upon the other side, and still claimed the other side did not exist, and was irrelevant and tiny, when pushed into admitting that it did exist. I was assured that this other “non-existent” side, which was tiny and unrepresentative, was none-the-less the richest and most powerful enemy which was supported by global corporations and governments and the media. This meant that the scientific method could be dispensed with to provide evidence which supports the cause, and all counter evidence could be hidden, denied or dismissed as irrelevant or cherry picked by denialists. Climate Science ceased to be science and instead became a cause.

The more I approached the alarmist’s side with honest and friendly, yet sceptical, questions, the more I was convinced that I was not dealing with scientists in the honest pursuit of truth.

The only side that presented me with honest answers, AND the possible counter evidence was the sceptical side. They would say something like, [scientist and scientist et al 2006] state that blah blah blah which is suggestive of the possible effect of…. however, there is dispute because [scientist 2008] discovered something else whilst looking for something else. Whilst this may mean (A) it could also mean (B), my preference would be (A) because….

Alarmists would write with religious certainty and only provide “accepted” papers even if those papers had been debunked.

Then Climategate happened…. then 10:10 and exploding children. Then Plane stupid and polar bears falling from the sky. Then climategate 2… then fakegate and so on and so on. as all this non-scientific rhetoric and propaganda was peddled by the alarmists side in lieu of empirical scientifically valid evidence, I found myself moving through the Dismissive and Doubtful categories and now I am in a category which is not even listed. Downright Hostile. I do not like being lied to, manipulated and being charged for it all in the name of a political cause.

the podcast on the same topic in the sat edition of ABC (once was) Science show..
has the anna shiela refusing flatly to even listen to Marc Moreno as..
shes been told he lies..
gee really?
and the mann and the rest who keep adjusting things to suit or not providing any data for verification are not?
shes a classic dumb ***greentard.
we do have em here,
the drop bears are slipping on the job:-(

As this poll can apparently be taken as often as one wants, I can’t imagine the reason why they put it on. Statistically it means exactly nothing.
Unless it is a very elaborate manipulation with the target to have watermelon clones doing the poll over and over AFTER the programm took place.
To show that if 60% were dismissive BEFORE the program, it was a matter of ignorance (and the high quality of the program of course) BECAUSE there were only 25% of dismissive AFTER the program.
This is one rational explanation I can find. The second would be that they are dumb like rocks.

For example, the definitions of “global warming” are almost exactly the same: “the term “Global warming refers to the idea [“premise” according to the AMS] that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result”. Note in particular the completely unnecessary (and prejudicial) words added after “the past 150 years” – which IMO would probably deter some sceptics from completing the polls. The early questions of the ABC poll follow the AMS poll closely but are considerably less nuanced.

BTW, although far from perfect, the AMS probably the best-designed global warming poll there’s been so far – and, with 1862 respondents, is probably a good reflection of opinion. And, despite that off-putting GW definition, an analysis of the responses to questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 shows that only a minority of respondents (probably less than 20%) is really worried about anthropogenic global warming. (I’ll post that analysis if anyone’s interested.)

So I managed to get an Alarmed by selecting all the extremist answers and that also got me an invitation to appear on the program.. I used the postcode of my French house which is 6 numbers starting with the Department code. If I do the survey again after the program and choose all the opposite answers I will be their greatest success as they will have changed my mind(aka poll result) about climate. Shame they are not offering expenses to go on the program, I have some mates there and the air fare from Latvia is crippling [ :)]

“Survey

If you would like to attend the Q&A special climate discussion in Sydney that follows this documentary, please click here

Your profile is:
Alarmed

The Alarmed are the group most convinced that global warming is happening. Global warming is very important to you and you are very worried about it. You have thought a lot about the issue, believe you are well informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, and are highly unlikely to change your mind. You believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening, and overwhelmingly believe that human activities are the primary cause. Compared to the other five groups, you are the most likely to view it as a threat to you personally and to future generations, and as already harming people now rather than in the distant future.

I don’t think it’s working – Dismissive has been sitting on 52% all day (where its been sitting for over a week now). That percentage should’ve shifted with the amount of activity in the last 12 hours or so. Maybe not recognizing the foreign URLs?

The survey is RIGGED. Not only by biases questions and predefining arbitrarily that warming will continue for 100 years but by misrepresenting what you enter.

My responses won entry as a “Doubtful”. Despite my entering, truthfully, that I have thought about it a lot and am well informed , they turn round and tell me I’m “informed only a little”.

Clearly the categories were written before the survey started and anyone who doubts global warming is important is A PRIORI ill-informed REGARDLESS of what they reply to the survey questions !!

>>
The Doubtful say they don’t know whether global warming is happening or not. You also say the issue is not personally important to you and you are not worried about it. ***You have thought only a little about global warming, and are informed only a little about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, yet say that you are somewhat unlikely to change your mind about the issue***. Most of the Doubtful believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is happening and believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. A majority of the Doubtful say global warming will harm them personally or future generations only a little or not at all, although some simply say they don’t know. Finally, you believe global warming will not start harming people for at least 100 years.
>>

Gilliard blatantly lied about her carbon tax, it looks like Australian state owned TV is not better.

Still, does not look like the survey is showing what they wanted, despite being rigged from the outset.

I selected that climate change is occurring, and that man is not the cause. I was lumped as a dismissive that didn’t believe climate change was happening. What a crock. I sent the developers a nasty email :)

At the end of the programe (the purpose of which is to CHANGE PEOPLES MINDS) I’d run a new poll (participants will hopefully be pinko leftard commo ABC watchers, GetUp members, Pravda on the Yarra readers etc) the poll should show a much higher percentage ‘alarmed’ and bingo, we’ve changed peoples minds.

So for those of you who hurriedly took the poll and ended up being ‘dismissive’ etc, you’ve fallen for the ABC Commie propaganda trap. I suggest you go back and ‘alarm’ yourselves now, then be ‘dismissive’ after the show.

So I have don just that, I will go back later and change it to “Dismissive” Please do the same as me.

Alarmed
The Alarmed are the group most convinced that global warming is happening. Global warming is very important to you and you are very worried about it. You have thought a lot about the issue, believe you are well informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, and are highly unlikely to change your mind. You believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening, and overwhelmingly believe that human activities are the primary cause. Compared to the other five groups, you are the most likely to view it as a threat to you personally and to future generations, and as already harming people now rather than in the distant future.

I have an opinion question that they’d never dare run: “Can either public or scientific consensus make one iota of difference in regard to any scientific truth?” Let’s vote on which way the earth rotates or the atomic weight of hydrogen. ‘Mob rule’ mentality is infecting scientific principle; ABC is Typhoid Mary.

I would encourage people to take the quiz and see how they rate. I took it, and although I am a true “denier” the poll came up with a designation for me as “doubtful”. From the answers I gave, I don’t see how this is possible. Bruce, you must have truly finessed this poll to get a “dismissive” rating.

I gave honest answers and I truly believe that the man-made warming theory is a corruption of science. I believe the “doubtful” rating given to me is indicative of the corruption.

As far as people actually changing their minds at this late stage, it ain’t gonna happen, at least not in the direction they’d like. I believe their last “success” in alarming people about climate change was Al Gores An Incovenient Truth Fairy Tale. Unfortunately for them, people with at least half a brain discovered it was all a bunch of hooey, dressed up as science. Their latest gambit, the “connect the dots” campaign is laughable, without even the slightest pretense of science, aimed, I guess at the truly brainless, or those willing to set aside reason, logic, and truth for a Belief system offering them relief from the guilt of living and the warm fuzzy feeling of helping “save the planet”.

Right from the start with their very first question, “Is global warming happening?”, they inject bias by not referencing a time period thus proving that they take us all for fools or are fools themselves.

Since the last ice age – yes. Since 1998 or the MWP – no.

Their “….do you think global warming will harm….” questions do not specify HOW MUCH global warming they are talking about. 2 degrees? 20 degrees? What?

The question “Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?” should have a “None of the above” answer because none of the ones they offer were close enough.

No, they do define what they mean by “global warming” with a specific time period: “ … global warming refers to the idea that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result”. See my post at 4:33 am above – commenting on the “may be increasing …” etc. bit and on the similarities between the questionnaires of this survey and the recent (and very interesting in view of the findings) American Meteorological Society survey.

The ABC are web savvy, they can and have blocked duplicate survey entries in the past. Perhaps they intend to produce a report after the second survey saying “xx% of Dismissive respondents answered twice or more”
What would be interesting would be a count of IP addresses that changed their atitude.
The program looks interesting, but the survey is a total waste of space.

I think more people are paying attention to their own thermometers,
The last record high here in central Ohio was in 2010. The oldest record high or low was in 1849. I don’t know how long records have been kept here but a little over 52% of the record highs were before 1950. Only a little over 32% of the record lows were before 1950. I’m not a “climate scientist” but it seems to me, that at least here in central Ohio, the hockey slick is pointing in the wrong direction.

After completing the survey I looked at the page source and figured out a URL that returns the basic results histogram as below. An easy way to refresh to see how things are progressing.http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/inc/vote_central_results.htm
From the page returned it looks like (as another poster suggested) they are going to also do an after-show version as I get the current histogram with “Pre Show” as a heading. Looking at the source of this page you will see the actual response numbers as comments at the end of each bar line.

I’ve been watching the “survey” results for some time now and in the last day the results are magically beginning to shift. The GetUp and WWF crowd are on the final push to ensure the Alarmed category gets a larger score. A few days ago Alarmed was at 19% and been that for a couple of weeks, today it’s at 29%.g

Note – it makes a little more allowance now in its summary of type for those who may be mild warmists or believe it is GW but not so much AGW.

Your profile is:
Dismissive
The Dismissive are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions – i.e., that there are none, because it doesn’t exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.

You fall in the 22% of Australians, who’ve taken this ‘climate challenge’ who are Dismissive of global warming.

Gunga Din says:
April 23, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I think more people are paying attention to their own thermometers,
The last record high here in central Ohio was in 2010. The oldest record high or low was in 1849. I don’t know how long records have been kept here but a little over 52% of the record highs were before 1950. Only a little over 32% of the record lows were before 1950. I’m not a “climate scientist” but it seems to me, that at least here in central Ohio, the hockey slick is pointing in the wrong direction.
______________________
I don’t like it when I find out something I said was factually incorrect. I got the info I based that on from here a week or so ago.http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/cmhrec.htm
Today I came across something that says record highs were set here in March of this year. I don’t know when the list I had looked at was last updated so my post is only accurate to 2010. It doesn’t seem to cover the last 2 years. I don’t want to appear to be intentionally trying to mislead anyone.
(But, hey, we’re not talking about tree rings.)